THESE ARE REGULARLY USED BY THE JUDICIAL MAFIA WHEN CONFRONTED
WITH THEIR TYRANNY AND MEN SHOULD LEARN TO SPOT
THE MECHANISMS THEY USE TO PERSECUTE DISSENTERS

OUTRAGED CITIZENS WAR ON THE COURTS AND JUDICIARY VIDEO

Michael Nowacki of New Canaan Connecticut might just be fighting for his life. If you complain about judges, or the courts, in the US, you can end up arrested and in prison. Others commit suicide under mysterious circumstances. Nowacki would have ended up in a mental hospital had it not been for an influential documentary producer who accompanied him to a Homeland Security meeting. The UK, Australia, Canada, and most of Europe also have a similarly abusive system. Laws are made by legislators who are mostly lawyers. They make money in the courts and they make laws (legislation) to keep people in the court system as long as possible so lawyers make more money. The more unfair the system is, the more money lawyers make.

Look at them, they are Freemasons, have affiliations to other lawyers and they swear an oath to each other that takes precedence over the US Constitution. International corporations and banks run the courts, police, and governments. Prisons are being privatized as corporations are bribing politicians to put more people in prison and to guarantee prison populations will be kept at certain levels. We pay taxes to be slaves and prisoners. We pay to have our families broken up and to have our homes and property seized. ?

JUDICIAL MAFIA SCAMS

If the methods used in anglo ‘ legal ‘ system were adopted in other areas of human endeavours we , as humanity , would be still in the stone age .

Enormous amount of power is put into hands of some publically unknown , unelected but secretly selected , ‘ trusted ‘ people . Who really selects them , who trusts them and WHY ? Absolute dominance in the society ( to both make and invalidate laws , and to control other people`s lives ) – over legislatures , the executive branch , and the people who elected these representatives . The power of judges ( lawyers ) is not compatible with democracy ! It is a structural problem with something what was designed to perform different functions than those which are presented for public consumption – and that appears to be unmendable problem at least to those who are involved with that system one way or the other .

Other possible explanation is that this is the system devised in the Middle Ages , an archaic and feudal system with supposedly a benevolent master knowing the best what and how to do everything – and the flunky`s irrevocably had to accept the masters decision . Regardless how idiotic and illogical it was they were obliged to praise the master for his wisdom . That anachronic system survived in spite of the change of the society from masters and slaves into the equal citizens ( well , almost ‘ equal ‘ ) .

With the external theatrics in appearance which is described as ‘ respect for tradition ‘ comes internal theatrics presented as ‘ fairness for all ‘ and ‘ respect for procedures ‘ . ‘ Begging ‘ , ‘ pleading ‘ – are overused expressions designed to reinforce the idea that the final deal is the result not of reasoning and impartiality but the graciousness and ‘ favour’ of the master who has to be pleased before uttering some phrases which usually have to be translated by the ‘ initiated ‘ before can be understood .

A system that allows such culture of perfidious manipulations to continue , in spite of claimed existence of checks and balances , is basically fatally flawed system .

One of the strangest peculiarities of this ‘ legal system ‘ is the fact that once a judge makes a decision he/she cannot change it himself in order to maintain the illusion of own infallibility . His/her decisions can be only changed very reluctantly by a higher court .

Disallowing the judge to admit and amend own mistakes and errors leads to the increase of the fictionality of ‘ infallibility ‘ . Such attitude spreaded from judges to barristers and the fiction of ‘ infallibility ‘ and always doing the right thing is foolishly guarded by all elements of the legal industry leading to the degeneration of the noble principles which the legal industry claims to be protecting .

During Stalin`s times in Russia there was a ‘ troyka ‘ system maintaining the illusion of the existence of some kind of judicial system , where all 3 members of the ‘ troyka ‘ were acting in collusion against the accused person .

Such ‘ troyka ‘ is well and alive in Queensland where judge , prosecutor and ‘ defence ‘ lawyer cooperate in facilitating achieving the conviction in the orderly way , making pretences of fairness and independence and seemingly obeying rules created to confuse the observers and the unfortunate unfamiliar participant(s) .

Court hearing is a choreographed event where all accomplices know their roles and the limits of their acting . In this legal system a herring can be ` legally ` , ` lawfully ` proven as being a type of horse if judge ` accepts ` the evidence that a herring has eyes just like a horse , rejects every other piece of evidence to the contrary and dresses up his/her decision in crafty , meaningless phrases which cannot be challenged by lawyers because they are ` officers of the court ‘ bound to ` loyalty ` by the enforced discipline .

Since they are dependent on the goodwill of licence givers , the Queensland lawyers eagerly participate in the role designated to them – pacification of human anger at the injustices and orderly handling subjects into submission . Therefore you cannot even dream that those people will attempt to improve the system, their fortunes are tied up to being obedient and maintaining the status quo .

( If you think that this is exaggeration please do recall the ‘ legal ‘ battle to have the game played 90% of the time with ‘ foot ‘ forbidden to be called ‘ football ‘ ( ‘ soccer ‘ – was meant to be deriding ) and a game played 10% of the time with ‘ foot ‘ to be called ‘ football ‘ .)

How can we ever forget about another pearl of the system . Some mongrels called ‘ lords ‘ invented the rule that – ‘ The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof ‘ ( The Nuremberg Trials – Charter of the International Military Tribunal – article 21 ) . What can be considered to be ‘ facts of common knowledge ‘ – anything what you desire , eg . ‘ pedal-driven brain bashing machine ‘ or soap from jewish dead bodies or lampshades from human skins , all became facts not needing to be proven !

Why this is happening ? – Aim could be to irritate people with obvious idiocy with the hope that they will act in irrational way out of frustration and if out of desperation they do something silly then they can be ` justifiably ` branded ` criminals ` , ` antisocial elements ` and similar epithets . Creating the falsehood of mysterious complexity about the `law` , purposeful confusion of the simplest of procedures and pretentious adherence to ostentatious desire for fairness serves exclusively very narrow group of people who contribute nothing to the community but through their privileges and machinations suck up its resources .

The system main strength is the collusion between various interest groups who have only one thing in common – pretending that they have public interest in heart while filling up own pockets . This is not happening in Nigeria or Kazakhstan or similar places favoured by people ‘ concerned ‘ about abuses of law and justice – this is happening in Queensland , Australia . Secondly , in places like Nigeria or Kazakhstan they still have few people honest enough to stand up to abuses of justice and power by those in power .

Like in every rotten and corrupt system the attitude of lawyers and judges towards the rest of the society is not going to change by itself – it has to be demanded by the society , those people have to understand that facts are not going to stop existing only because they are ignored .

CONNECTICUT COURT RULE CORRUPTION;

The story of citizens rallying together to restore Justice in Connecticut. The documentary follows the discussion about how Connecticut forms its Practice Book Rules. What citizens found was astounding. 70% of marital wealth is lost during Divorce, and now Nutmeg Judges want even a bigger chunk… Ct. General Statute 51-14 was passed in 1957 to limit the authority of the court to promulgate practice book rules which prohibited (shall not) abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right or the jurisdiction of any of the courts.”

Despite admonitions provided to the Rules Committee at the Supreme Court on May 31, and despite letters which have been delivered to the legislature which has the responsibility to follow the law including General Statute 51-14 protocols which require hearings to be conducted by the judiciary committee before such rules could be promulgated (adopted) for implementation. Information obtained from the Office of Legislative research reported March 9, 2009, showed that a legislative fellow traced each and every practice book rule modification, and wrongly found that the Supreme Court self determined that the legislature had no authority over the Practice Book Rules modification approval process–He cited unspecific references to the Constitution of the State of Connecticut, which don’t exist–which in fact, gave the legislature no authority to approve the rules of practice.

Documents which have been obtained under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that letters have been going from either the chair of the Rules Committee or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court annually to the members of the judiciary committee in April of every year, showing clandestine meetings in the Supreme Court chambers, ie..non-public meeting with the Rules Committee and Supreme Court Justices, to review the proposed Rules of Practice. According to this OLR document of 24 pages, tracing every single rules modification proposed since 1957, there has never been a single rule which has been rejected by the General Assembly by resolution–which is the proscribed proceedure outlined in Ct. General Statute 51-14 (b). Such a lack of oversight of following the proper protocols by the legislature and its judiciary committee is a “wanton, willful and malicious” failure to uphold the laws to protect the citizens of the State of Connecticut from the self empowerment of the judiciary of the State of Connecticut which has resulted in a series of modifications since which have abridged the General Statute 51-14 prohibiting “judicial self empowerment” embodied in the words “the court shall have judicial discretion”.

Prior to 1957, the Practice Book was a law. Since 1957, the egregious and absolute abuse of the acquisition of power by the jurists in the State of Connecticut, with the full complicity of the lawyers who sit on the public administrative committees of the judiciary, the full slate of judges in the State of Connecticut, the court administrators, the Governor, and the Attorney General’s Office has participated in the unlawful abridgment of the Powers of Separation. Further jurisdictional authority has been granted to the federal courts when a state does not enforce its own laws. Since virtually every member of the legislative judiciary committee was a lawyer by training, it is believed that in their private legal practices, the legislators received preferential decisions from judges who have made favorable rulings for the law firms where these legislators/lawyers are gainfully employed. We know that the JRC has conducted only 11 public hearings over the years on judicial misconduct. The reason, we discover was in the word “should” in the old code was deemed by the JRC to not require (shall) that the judges take certain actions to acknowledge “conflicts of interests” which have abounded for years.

However, since a new Code of Judicial Conduct went into effect on January 1, 2011 which now requires (“shall”) judges to hold proper disqualification hearings upon the filing of motions under Practice Book Rule 2.16 (e), the balance of power has shifted to allow for any of us to require an evidentiary hearing to allow a citizen to build a record for appeal of judicial bias and prejudice. We can only continue to fight this “bare knuckles” battle of corruption in the family court system of our Constitutional and civil rights as parents to the love, care and companionship of our children as a fundamental liberty interest defined in the words “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

JUDGES STATE RIGHTS OF HOMOSEXUALS COME BEFORE CHRISTIANS

Rights of homosexuals come before those of Christians in the eyes of the law(or laws usurped by deviant judges NOT juries)

Two Christian hotel owners who refused to let a gay couple share a room have been told that the rights of homosexuals come before those of Christians in the eyes of the law. Peter and Hazelmary Bull yesterday lost their appeal against an order to pay thousands of pounds in compensation to two gay men who booked an £80-a-night double room at their Cornish B&B. The Court of Appeal told Mr and Mrs Bull that they were entitled to express their beliefs, but not if they were incompatible with the rights of gay people.

The landmark ruling by the three Appeal Court judges confirmed the supremacy of gay rights over Christian belief under the Sexual Orientation Regulations brought in by the Labour party. Mr and Mrs Bull, 71 and 66, run Chymorvah House in Marazion. In September 2008 they accepted a booking for an £80-a-night double room from Steven Preddy, 38, believing he would be staying with his wife. But when Mr Preddy arrived with his 46-year-old civil partner Martyn Hall, the men were told that they could have two rooms, but not share one.

In January last year Judge Andrew Rutherford ruled at Bristol County Court that the Bulls had breached equality legislation and ordered them to pay the couple a total of £3,600 damages. In their appeal, lawyers for the Bulls told the appeal court judges that the couple thought any sex outside marriage was a ‘sin’. They denied that they had discriminated against Mr Hall and Mr Preddy, from Bristol, because they had also barred unmarried heterosexual couples from sharing double rooms since they opened for business 25 years ago.

But yesterday Sir Andrew Morritt, Chancellor of the High Court, Lord Justice Hooper and Lady Justice Rafferty, sitting at the Court of Appeal in London, unanimously dismissed their plea. Lady Justice Rafferty said: ‘Whilst the appellants’ beliefs about sexual practice may not find the acceptance that once they did, nevertheless a democratic society must ensure that their espousal and expression remain open to those who hold them. ‘However, in a pluralist society it is inevitable that from time to time, as here, views, beliefs and rights of some are not compatible with those of others.

‘As I have made plain, I do not consider that the appellants face any difficulty in manifesting their religious beliefs, they are merely prohibited from so doing in the commercial context they have chosen.’ The taxpayer-funded state equality body, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, had backed Mr Preddy and Mr Hall in their action. Outside court, John Wadham of the EHRC said: ‘We believe that this case will help people to better understand the law around freedom of religion.

‘When offering a service, people cannot use their beliefs, religious or otherwise, to discriminate against others.’ But Simon Calvert, of the Christian Institute, which funded Mr and Mrs Bull’s appeal, said: ‘Something has gone badly wrong with our equality laws when good, decent people like Peter and Hazelmary are penalised but extremist hate preachers are protected.’ Neither couple was in court for the hearing.

Dana Baker and barrister/judge David Jones

A teenage victim of sex assault hanged herself after her barrister broke strict legal rules and caused the first court case to collapse.

Dana Baker, who was 16 when she died, hanged herself near a busy roundabout in Kidderminster, Worcestershire last March. She was awaiting the retrial of karate instructor Jaspal Riat, 48, who had repeatedly assaulted her since the age of 13. She had made a final cry for help on Facebook in the hours before she committed suicide, pleading: ‘Lying here, trying to figure out what the hell I’m gonna do.’ Now it has emerged that the first trial was dramatically halted after the prosecutor David Jones – who was also a part-time judge – held a meeting with Miss Baker over lunch at his home, which broke the rules on witness contact. The barrister with No5 Chambers in Birmingham resigned from the Bar soon afterwards. Riat, 48, was jailed for eight years at the retrial in September at Gloucester Crown Court but justice came too late for Dana, who was a gifted student.

Jurors heard how the abuser from Handsworth Wood, Birmingham, tied up and had sex with Dana when she was 13 and 14. Riat ran the KoshinRyu Academy of Martial Arts in Birmingham when he met Dana, who was 13 and a pupil at Stourport High School. At the time of her death she was training for a black belt in karate. She represented Great Britain at the WUKO World Junior Karate Championships in Italy in 2008. Riat took her to Italy on that trip where he had sex with her.

He was cleared of rape but convicted of sexual assault and seven counts of sexual activity with a child. Riat first went on trial for abusing Dana at Birmingham Crown Court in the summer of 2010. A jury was sworn in on August 2 and Mr Jones opened the case on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service.

But the next day Judge Philip Parker QC dramatically halted the trial, which had taken months of preparation. He revealed Mr Jones had held a pre-trial meeting at his house with Dana, who was described by the judge as a vulnerable witness. Judge Parker said at the time: ‘It is a very serious case, at its highest an allegation of rape of a young girl of 13 or 14 by a man in a position of trust.

‘This morning matters have been drawn to my attention over concern about a meeting which prosecuting counsel, Mr David Jones, had with the complainant in the case. ‘The long and short of it is that as a result of disclosures in respect of that meeting, the defence… wish that the jury be discharged and that some investigations take place concerning this meeting so that Mr Jones’ position is clear and so that the defence have material upon which they might consider making further applications in respect of the trial.’ The meeting took place on July 29, 2010 at Mr Jones’ home.

Dana attended with her foster mother and a carer or social worker. It is understood that Mr Jones’ wife was also present at the meeting, which included food. Yet the barrister breached his own profession’s Code of Conduct because the Crown Prosecution Service was not notified of the meeting, no police officer was in attendance and no notes were taken. Mr Jones had said he had wanted to discuss with Dana if she would give evidence via a TV link, or live in court behind a screen.

Such a meeting could have been allowed under ‘special measures’, as long as no evidential matters were discussed. But the barrister admitted to the judge that Dana had seen the transcripts of her video evidence and a ‘prosecution case summary’ which included a ‘summary of what she was maintaining, but also included summaries of other witnesses’ evidence’. The judge added that Mr Jones believed Dana had also been allowed to take away ‘his own personal summary of her interviews’.

Mr Jones apparently told the judge the meeting had been ‘well-intentioned’ and was aimed at seeking to ‘avoid any problem with late video editing which might hold up the trial’. It was a misjudgement, in the judge’s view, to ‘see a witness in such circumstances, in particular a young witness, a witness with some sort of psychological/psychiatric background. ‘The long and short of it is that I do not believe that this jury can continue to consider this case… I am afraid the result of my ruling is that the current jury will have to be discharged and we will have to seek a new potential date for the trial.’

A subsequent hearing took place about two months later at which Riat’s defence team argued for the case against him to be thrown out on the grounds that there had been ‘an abuse of process’. That application failed but Mr Jones resigned from the Bar the day after that hearing, in which his meeting with the teenage victim was heavily criticised. An inquest into Dana’s death was opened last autumn. A full hearing to determine how and why she died will be held later this month.

Despite her death, West Midlands Crown Prosecution Service successfully argued for a retrial and lawyers had her crucial videotaped evidence admitted. In a statement, Tony McDaid, practice director of No5 Chambers, said he could not comment on the circumstances of the rape trial collapse. He added: ‘Mr Jones joined us in 2006 and was a leading barrister on the Midlands’ circuit for 40 years. What happened was a very unfortunate matter but Mr Jones had an exemplary record.’

He added that the Crown Prosecution Service had faith in Mr Jones’ judgement and advocacy skills, in giving him such a sensitive case. Mr Jones was unavailable for comment.

AS WE HAVE BEEN EXPOSING FOR A VERY LONG TIME THE JUDICIAL MAFIA HAVE BEEN CONTROLLING THE MASS MEDIA THIS IS THE NEXT STEP IN THEM TRYING TO DICTATE WHAT IS VIEWED ON THE INTERNET. ALTHOUGH THEY ARE USING COUNTERFEITING AS AN EXCUSE TO CENSOR WEBSITES ONCE THESE EVIL BASTARDS START THEY WILL USE ANY EXCUSE TO CENSOR MUCH MORE INTERNET CONTENT ESPECIALLY THOSE CRITICAL OF WHAT THEY ARE ALL ABOUT.

A US Judge has ordered Google, Yahoo, Twitter and Facebook, among others, to delist domain names linked to websites selling counterfeit goods. It represents a significant step in the ongoing battle against the sale of fake items online. The case was brought by luxury goods maker Chanel against 600 sites which it had identified as trading in counterfeits. Many experts were surprised at the scope of the Nevada judge’s ruling. US firm GoDaddy, which manages around 45 million domain names, has been given control of the web addresses of the 600 firms. It has been told to ensure that none of the sites can be accessed.

Judge Dawson also ordered:

Google, Bing, Yahoo, Facebook, Google+ and Twitter to remove the domain name from any search results pages.
The defendants to stop using Chanel’s name and images, and to stop selling any Chanel products.
GoDaddy to link the web addresses involved to a site outlining the case.

Whack-a-mole

Chanel’s counterfeit investigative team identified the websites by ordering goods from them which it then determined to be fakes. Writing about the case in his blog, laywer Eric Goldman said: “Wow, I’m sympathetic to the “whack-a-mole” problem rights owner face, but this relief is just extraordinarily broad and is on shaky procedural grounds.” Others have questioned how much jurisdiction the court would have over domains that had been registered outside of the US.

“One of the problems is that the internet is a global phenomenon and you would need similar judgements in all jurisdictions,” said Rachel Barber, assistant at law firm Wiggin. She linked the case to the L’Oreal versus eBay judgement earlier this year. In July the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that eBay and others should play a more active role in stopping their sellers from trading in counterfeit L’Oreal goods.

The court said that websites such as eBay might be liable for trademark infringements if they played an “active role” in promoting fake goods. “It is acknowledged that third party intermediaries are best placed to tackle online infringement and that when intermediaries have knowledge of this based on good evidence that can’t just sit on their hands,” said Ms Barber. Google said that it had no comment to make at this stage because it was yet to be served with the judgement. Facebook said was looking into the matter.

For every single wee ned jailed for stealing the most minuscule amount the judge who has effectively become the ‘JURY’ is more likely part of the biggest criminal network on the planet. By stealth the judicial mafia, a cabal of freemason/speculative society members ,have created a system of ‘LAW’ that greatly benefits those who have charged themselves with administering, as well as bringing into fruition a means of transferring incalculable amounts of other people’s money and assets into their ‘CROWN’ kitty.

Virtually all of it goes under the radar of their compliant and complicit media who operate from Fleet street and conveniently next door the the International control network for the legal mafia at the Inns of Court that surround the hallowed walls of the (Knights) Templar church. The press and tv are heavily censored by media lawyers embedded in EVERY outlet that formally was the only way we could get news , that was prior to the internet. That has led to the enormous distortions of the media were JUDGES are held in high esteem and as the upholders of truth and justice and always quoted with sanctimonious verbiage as they send another wee ned down to the cells.

This has created a mythical impression that these evil bastards are looking after our interests by locking up another scoundrel while safeguarding the population from the BAD boys. What is most ridiculous about this scenario is that it is the very judicial mafia that are the biggest crooks of all, stealing vast swathes of land and property in dodgy secretive court rooms that make all other crime pale next to the trillions made from the repossession of land, business and property masquerading as the ‘LAW’ or their interpretation of the ‘LAW’ that ensures they can steal with impunity and with little or no comeback from those they victimize.

JUDGE CAUGHT BRUTALLY BEATING DISABLED DAUGHTER VIDEO

THESE ARE THE MONSTERS RESPONSIBLE FOR HORRENDOUS DECISIONS THAT DESTROY PEOPLES LIVES. ONLY ONE EXAMPLE OF THE SCUMBAGS THAT RUTHLESSLY RULE COURTS ACROSS THE GLOBE.

2004: Aransas County Court-At-Law Judge William Adams took a belt to his own teenage daughter as punishment for using the internet to acquire music and games that were unavailable for legal purchase at the time. She has had ataxic cerebral palsy from birth that led her to a passion for technology, which was strictly forbidden by her father’s backwards views.

The judge’s wife was emotionally abused herself and was severely manipulated into assisting the beating and should not be blamed for any content in this video. The judge’s wife has since left the marriage due to the abuse, which continues to this day, and has sincerely apologized and repented for her part and for allowing such a thing, long before this video was even revealed to exist. Judge William Adams is not fit to be anywhere near the law system if he can’t even exercise fit judgement as a parent himself. Do not allow this man to ever be re-elected again. His “judgement” is a giant farce. Signed, Hillary Adams, his daughter.

JUDGES ARE NOT IMPARTIAL TRIBUNALS AND COVER UP THE DODGY PRACTICES OF FREEMASONS EMBEDDED IN EVERY AREA OF BRITISH LIFE ESPECIALLY THOSE INVOLVED IN THE NEWS OF THE WORLD SPYING AND HACKING SCANDAL.

The judge leading the inquiry into the phone-hacking scandal was last night urged to ‘come clean’ about his links to the Murdoch family. Lord Justice Leveson was facing questions over his impartiality after it emerged he attended two parties in the past year at the London home of Rupert Murdoch’s daughter, Elisabeth, and her husband, PR supremo Matthew Freud. In his role as chairman of the independent Sentencing Council, he is also reported to have had dinner last year with Mr Freud to discuss an offer from Freud Communications to give free PR advice on improving public confidence in the criminal justice system.

It is not known whether he met members of the Murdoch family at any of the events or whether he discussed phone hacking and the role of the media. Labour MP Chris Bryant last night said the revelations raised ‘serious questions’ about whether Lord Justice Leveson would be able to command public confidence in his role as head of the inquiry, which is likely to take evidence from Mr Murdoch and his son James. Lord Justice Leveson is believed to have informed David Cameron of his social links to Mr Freud before he was appointed to lead the inquiry. But Mr Bryant said the judge was ‘compromised’ by the revelations.

He added: ‘I’m afraid this does raise serious questions and he does now need to come clean about exactly who he met and what they discussed. ‘He may well be very independent but the way this has come out makes it look as if he has got something to cover up.’ A spokesman for Lord Leveson confirmed he attended ‘large evening events’ at Mr Freud’s home in July last year and January this year.

But he declined to say who the judge had met, and added that there was ‘no continuing relationship’. The revelations came as David Cameron pledged to restore Britain’s confidence in the wake of a string of scandals.

Writing in a special edition of the Big Issue magazine today, the Prime Minister says Britain ‘has had some real knocks and people’s confidence in our country has been shaken to the core’ by the scandals surrounding the banks, MPs’ expenses and phone hacking. He added: ‘There’s a sense that the rich and the powerful – politicians, bankers, the press and the police – have been serving themselves, not each other.

Probe: Labour MP Chris Bryant said the revelations raised ‘serious questions’ about whether Lord Justice Leveson would be able to command public confidence in his role as head of the inquiry

‘Add to all that the way the world is changing, with the rise of new powers like China and India, and I think there’s a general feeling that maybe our best days as a country are behind us. I passionately believe that is not the case.’ Business Secretary Vince Cable, who was stripped of his powers over the media last year after boasting he had ‘declared war’ on Rupert Murdoch, yesterday called for new media ownership rules in the wake of the scandal. Mr Cable said Mr Murdoch’s impact on media plurality had been ‘deeply unhelpful’ and must never be repeated. He said media groups should face ‘a very clear set of rules’ limiting market share and that there should be a new presumption against allowing press barons to own TV stations.

He said there were also ‘big questions’ about whether Mr Murdoch was a fit and proper person to own a controlling stake in the broadcaster BSkyB – an issue being investigated by the regulator Ofcom. Meanwhile, MPs on the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee were last night still considering whether to recall James Murdoch following claims that he misled Parliament during his high-profile appearance last week. Although Parliament is in recess, Mr Murdoch could be recalled as early as this week to answer allegations from former News Corporation executives Tom Crone and Colin Myler that he knew more about the extent of the phone-hacking scandal than he let on.

Mr Murdoch disputes the claims that he knew about a devastating email suggesting the hacking scandal was not limited to a single ‘rogue reporter’ when he signed off a £700,000 payment to settle claims that the News of the World hacked the phone of Gordon Taylor, head of the Professional Footballers’ Association.

‘Casey Anthony trial judge is as big a liar as she is,’ claims former mistress of seven years

He fired me to further his career, says Janis Williamson
Perry denied the affair before confessing, she claims

The judge in the Casey Anthony trial has been branded by a former mistress as big a liar as Casey! Judge Perry was praised for his cool, methodical handling of the controversial Casey trial but a source close to alleged mistress Janis Williamson paints an entirely different picture. The 61-year-jurist was a cheating cad who relentlessly pursued Miss Williamson and then dumped her to protect his career, claims the source.

Father-of-two Judge Perry repeatedly lied to federal investigators after she brought their relationship out into the open and slapped him with a lawsuit, The National Enquirer quotes the source as saying. ‘Judge Belvin Perry is as big a lair as Casey Anthony!’ the source told the National Enquirer. ‘Janis told me, “The main is a flat-out liar who tried to destroy my life. It sickens me to hear people praising him. They don’t know him like I do. He’s a hypocrite”.’

Mr Perry began pursuing Miss Williamson when she was a deputy court administrator for Florida’s Ninth Judicial Circuit in 1989, the source said. Mr Perry was a circuit judge in Florida’s Osceola County at the time. The source said: ‘Janis said Judge Perry kept coming into her room and flirting with her. ‘They played chess together and he kept asking her to lunch.

‘Janis told me “I’m a white woman from the South. The last thing I’d ever consider is having an affair with a black man. But Belvin persisted and one day he gave me a $250 JVC CD player”.’ When asked what she had done to deserve such a gift, according to Janis the judge allegedly answered: ‘Why don’t you just give me a kiss.’ The alleged affair began soon after, the source said.

To set up their trysts, the judge would call to say he would be dropping off or leaving notes on her door with the code letter ‘J’, the source said. ‘Janis told me that Belvin also invited her to parties at his home with his wife LaDrean and their two children. ‘She said, “He seemed to get a thrill out of taking the risk”,’ the source added.

It is also claimed that Mr Perry took Janis, now 62, to his house while his wife was out of town. According to the source, Mr Perry even juggled other women while he was cheating with Williamson. ‘Janis told me that a woman called his hotel room when they were at a conference together, and Belvin admitted that he was seeing her,’ the source said.

Mr Perry often talked about leaving his wife and children – Belvin III is a 35-year-old insurance agent and Kimberly, 31, is an investments adviser – for Miss Williamson, said the source. ‘Belvin told Janis that he loved her and talked about marrying her,’ said the source. ‘But she told me, “I cared about Belvin, but I never loved him”.’ Miss Williamson now works as a consultant for the Florida Agency for Healthcare Administration in Tallahassee.

‘She had what she called her Monica Lewinsky evidence – used condoms that he left on her nightstand’

She claims that Mr Perry ordered her to deny their affair if it became public, said the source. After he was elected Chief Judge of the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court in 1995, Mr allegedly arranged for Miss Williamson to be fired. She filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

‘Janis thinks Belvin had her terminated because it was too risky to continue their affair,’ said the source. When EEOC investigators questioned Mr Perry about Miss Williamson, he initially denied the affair before confessing they had a one-year dalliance and then eventually coming clean, the source said. ‘Belvin didn’t admit the truth until he realised Janis had proof,’ the source added.

The proof included a calendar Miss Williamson kept, marking each sexually intimate tryst with a hand-drawn heart. The source said other evidence included a monogrammed leather toiletry kit that he kept in his office which she still had the receipt for. ‘She also had what she called her “Monica Lewinsky” evidence – used condoms that he left on her nightstand,’ the source said.

In the wake of the scandal, Mr Perry stepped down as Chief Judge for two years, The Enquirer reports. The EEOC case ended in 1999, when Miss Williamson received a $65,000 settlement. The source said: ‘Janis told me, “What Belvis did was no different from what he sentenced Casey Anthony to jail for doing – he lied to investigators and got caught”.’

MURDOCH EMPIRE’S HACKING HAS EXPOSED CROOKED COPS AND EX-COPS ALL PART OF A SECRET CABAL OF FREEMASON/ZIONIST SPY NETWORK UNDERMINING THE WHOLE POLITICAL STRUCTURE OF THE UK.

Evidence of illegal data checks on Gordon Brown buried by 2005 ruling

Judge ruled that proposed trial based on key discoveries by Plymouth police would be a waste of taxpayers’ money An unexpected ruling by a judge six years ago effectively covered up the chance to publicly expose evidence of the illegal targeting of Gordon Brown, which had been unearthed by a startled team of provincial detectives. Operation Reproof, by Plymouth police, revealed the first of what became many systematic attempts to gain illegal confidential information on the prime minister and his family, but their findings were suppressed. The Guardian has now been able to document the facts.

Files buried in police archives detail the discovery of an extraordinary nationwide network of private investigators, whom a corrupt local police officer was feeding with information filched from the police national computer (PNC). To the detectives’ surprise, the targets included the then chancellor of the exchequer, listed by his full name, James Gordon Brown and date of birth, as well as two other Labour politicians. They were the chancellor’s close colleague, the agriculture minister Nick Brown, plus the embattled MP for Reading West, Martin Salter, who at the time of the PNC break-in had been publicly put on an “enemies list” by the then News of the World editor, Rebekah Brooks.

An Exeter detective constable, Phil Diss, was covertly performing PNC checks, which were subsequently sold on to private investigators in bulk, for as little as £40 or even £20 a time. Gordon Brown’s office were privately warned in 2003 at the time of discovery of the illegal data checks, according to sources familiar with the case. So too were Nick Brown and Salter. Diss, a popular and long-serving police officer, used his official access to the PNC to supply results to his former boss, a retired police inspector, who ran a commercial investigation agency in Exmouth, servicing other private detectives across the country.

SAS Investigations in Exmouth gleaned material from a stable of several local police officers and civil servants able to get into official databases, containing criminal records, other police intelligence and social security details The purchaser of information on the three Labour politicians was Glen Lawson, another private detective in Newcastle upon Tyne, according to police records and court transcripts obtained by the Guardian. Lawson, who still trades in Tyneside under the name Abbey Investigations, refuses to say which journalists contracted him to pursue Gordon Brown and other members of the Labour government. He told the Guardian at the weekend: “I am not going to make any comment”.

Lawson was raided on 26 February 2003 by Devon and Cornwall police and his files seized. He himself was not charged, the court was later told, because of a CPS decision to try to avoid excessive prosecution delays. But the evidence involving Gordon Brown did form part of the Crown case against Diss and his former boss, Alan Stidwill of SAS Investigations. Eventually, six people were charged with offences involving misconduct in public office after a three-year investigation across the country called Operation Reproof. It strained the budget of Devon and Cornwall police, forcing them to agree to limit the range of defendants and to focus research on their own West Country area. But, a police spokesman told the Guardian this week, as far as those six were concerned: “We thought we had a strong case.”

The police team were then surprised and upset when Judge Paul Darlow refused in 2005 to regard the issue as sufficiently serious to go to trial. He prevented a jury from hearing the case, saying the alleged behaviour was too trivial to justify criminal misconduct charges, and the proposed trial would be a waste of public money. The papers in front of him identified the two ministers and an MP. Darlow specifically referred at a pre-trial hearing to the fact that “particulars in respect of the chancellor of the exchequer were sought and obtained”. But he nonetheless accepted defence claims that the illegal PNC information had been primarily passed to respectable insurance companies, finance houses and other detective agencies, in order to prevent fraud.

He asserted that an eight-week trial might cost as much as £1m in legal fees: “In my judgment it is not a proportionate use of valuable resources to prosecute these matters,” he said. As a result, all the defendants were formally acquitted, and none of the evidence was made public. Stidwill, whose counsel maintained he had no idea the names being checked belonged to politicians, said after being cleared: “It has been a dreadful waste of taxpayers’ money. We’ve been to court 13 or 14 times over that period and treated like criminals. It’s had a terrible effect on us all.”

THESE ARROGANT BASTARDS THINK THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH MURDER

‘Now you are the servant’: Convicted judge sentenced for battering his wife because she hadn’t cooked his dinner A deputy high court judge who hit his wife because she deprived him of his dinner was told to remember he was now the ‘servant’ rather than the ‘master’ as he was warned to co-operate with probation officers. James Allen QC was given a 12 month supervision order by District Judge Daphne Wickham at Bradford Magistrates Court today.

Reminding him of his legal obligation to co-operate with the probation service for the duration of the order, Mrs Wickham told him: ‘You are no longer the master, Mr Allen. You are the servant.’ During a trial which ended earlier this month, Allen, 61, claimed his wife Melanie inflicted injuries on her own face during an incident at their house in Woolley, Wakefield, West Yorkshire, on February 20 last year. Mrs Allen, 44, backed up her husband’s story when she gave evidence in court. She also said she had self-harmed in the past.

But Mrs Wickham said she did not believe the couple’s account and found Allen guilty of common assault. Allen sat behind his lawyer today for the 10-minute long sentencing hearing. His wife was not in court, although the district judge was told they are still together. Mrs Wickham also ordered the judge to pay £5,000 towards the £5,421 cost of the prosecution. The court heard how most of this cost was spent on expert medical opinion. The trial, which was spread over a number of days starting last year, heard the argument between the Allens started after Allen had been away for a week and then spent the Saturday running his family around. He returned to the family home having not eaten, to find his wife was preoccupied by the couple’s cleaner, who had come round to talk to Mrs Allen about various problems she was having.

They both told the court the argument was more heated than usual and Mrs Allen described her increasing exasperation at her husband’s insistence he was leaving. She said she punched herself on the sides of her head out of sheer frustration and despair. Mrs Allen also gave evidence saying she had done something similar on Boxing Day 2009, following another argument. And, she said, she cut her wrist 18 years ago resulting in a minor injury which was treated in hospital.

But one doctor told the hearing Mrs Allen’s injuries on February 20 – which included bruises and swelling – were not consistent with self-punching. Police officers told the trial Mrs Allen made no mention of harming herself when they called at the house within 15 minutes of receiving a 999 call. In that emergency call, the caller was recorded saying Allen was ‘trying to kill’ Mrs Allen.

Sentencing Allen today, Mrs Wickham said Allen had reacted to his irritation at his wife having a ‘female chat’ with the cleaner ‘rather like a sprung coil’. The district judge added: ‘I found that you snapped when you felt you were being stopped from leaving.’ She reminded the court Allen hit his wife at least three times and, although the bruises and swelling were not ‘long lasting’, she said the attack was ‘dangerous and unpleasant’. She said to Allen: ‘The effect of the conviction on you personally and professionally is profound. That is punishment, I’m sure you will think, in itself.’ Allen made no comment as he left the court.

He was called to the bar in 1973 and was made a QC in 1995. He was made a deputy high court judge in 2000. One high profile case he presided over was Christine Gill-v-RSPCA, in which he ruled against the animal charity in a dispute over a large will bequest.

Mrs Allen is also a trained barrister. She sits using her professional name, Melanie Williamson, as a deputy coroner in the eastern district of West Yorkshire, covering the Leeds area. A spokeswoman for the Judicial Communications Office said: ‘The Lord Chief Justice has decided to refer Deputy High Court Judge Allen to the Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC), following his conviction of common assault. ‘The OJC is aware of this matter and is investigating. It is inappropriate to comment further at this time.’

Since posting my article on the current condition of our judicial system, I have received numerous emails and phone calls from individuals across the country. Based on these continuing communications I have concluded that the average citizen is in far more danger stepping into a court room of any kind, than from any commonly recognized criminal activity on the street. At least with a street criminal you stand a chance of defending yourself.

Many of the people who contacted me spoke of going so far as to meet with the FBI in the hopes of getting an investigation launched into the criminal conduct of not only judges, but also of state agency actors who, acting under the auspices of their offices repeatedly violated not only the law but the civil and lawful rights of individuals. Many of these actors believe they are immune from prosecution due to the office they hold. While the office itself may be immune, the individual occupying it can be held personally liable under a constitutional tort. This can be intentional or negligent. These tort claims hold the official directly and personally responsible for their actions; which is exactly why “tort reform” is high on the agenda of things to get done, in the District of Criminals. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/crcl/vol38_2/park.pdf

In absolutely every case, without exception, of those who approached the FBI in their respective states, a stock answer was delivered to those hopeful for some kind of help from this agency. That answer is: You have a lot of evidence but you just need to get more evidence and then we can see if we can do anything to help you. (paraphrased, of course) or, the second and more common response: “What is it you want us to do?” (paraphrased)

Having seen the stacks of court documents and evidence compiled by individuals who have fallen victim to judicial abuse and fiduciary malfeasance and fraud in more than 152 guardianship abuse cases, I have to wonder just how much evidence is enough for the FBI to get involved? It appears that since our law enforcement departments fell under Homeland Security and are now allowed to lie, to fabricate evidence even on the stand, to harass and intimidate just because they can, to break into your home if they say they smelled “something” or if they say they heard “something”, the courts seem to have joined in, in the violation of law and your civil rights. In many instances, those reporting claimed to have also approached the Department of Justice (DoJ) only to be told they were not interested in pursuing any investigation into the corruption of judges, especially probate judges who, according to the GAO, have facilitated the theft of millions upon millions of dollars worth of assets from the elderly and disabled, declaring them incompetent after drugging them, discarding all previous legal instruments prepared in advance, and restraining family and friends from any contact with the victim while the estate is being robbed.

This system of abuse in probate courts is no secret and is well known not only on the state level but in the District of Criminals as well. In these cases in particular, absolute mountains of evidence concerning theft of estates, medical mistreatment, kidnapping of the elderly (with assets) from their homes using law enforcement, and rampant judicial misconduct to facilitate the profiteering of professional fiduciaries who make a parasitic living robbing the elderly is so substantial, so voluminous that no one at any level of government can claim they do not know and were not aware that it is happening. The routine exclusion of evidence, the statements by more than one judge to the effect that the law is what they say it is, and, that in their court they don’t want to hear about your rights, should have us all demanding an investigation. Those who were injured in courtrooms by the activities of corrupt judges in cahoots with equally corrupt attorney’s and state agencies, including probate, were told to hire an attorney; it was a legal issue. This of course assumes they can get an attorney to represent them at all, or if they do, that somehow a judge will magically appear that will actually uphold the law.

State level attorneys general, refuse to prosecute or even look at evidence. Local district attorneys are equally reticent to defend the law or the rights of injured individuals. This is cronyism at its worst and we all pay the price. And this is happening in every state of the union, without exception, in every court system. I would like to say that I had an answer for this. I don’t. As our police are no longer there to “protect and serve” and as our courts are the genesis of more criminal activity than occurs on the street on any given day, we cannot even hope that agencies such as the FBI or DoJ will come to the rescue. On the federal level, even though the Criminal gang that resides in the District at our expense is well aware that our courts are rotten to the core the most they are willing to do is to hold useless “hearings” which most of them nap through. They have no intentions of doing anything to rectify the situation.

We are on our own. The agencies and elected officials that should be jumping to our defense are sitting idly by watching the deterioration of the very core of our nation. It occurs to me that when the law enforcement and judicial systems break down to this extent, we are witnessing government sanctioned anarchy. So…what do we do now?

Marti Oakley is a political activist and former op-ed columnist for the St Cloud Times in Minnesota. She was a member of the Times Writer’s Group until she resigned in September of 07. She is neither Democrat nor Republican, since neither party is representative of the American people. She says what she thinks, means what she says, and is known for being outspoken. She is hopeful that the American public will wake up to what is happening to our beloved country . . . little of it is left. Her website is The PPJ Gazette

Lawyers controlled from the Inns of court in London via UGLE write the legal contracts they have a complete monopoly over . When they decide to steal your home, sometimes with the banks insistence, they use glorified lawyers renamed judges who without juries steal vast swathes of land, property and business disguised as the law. Laws that are irrelevant to the protection of the victims of the legal mafia who have been getting away with murder unhindered while the police mafia aid and abet their theiving scams.

While the U. S. Department of Justice is actively prosecuting mortgage and foreclosure fraud, a national organization that helps homeowners avoid foreclosure has evidence that certain state judges appear to be protecting lawbreakers. Billions of dollars have been received by corporations in the foreclosure industry since the Great Recession began.

Are these vast sums of money finding their way to elected state judges and politicians? CHOESTOE, GA – June 11, 2011 (Examiner.com) – Amid the splendor of pristine mountains, waterfalls and springtime flowers in one of America’s favorite vacationlands, a passionate lady-with-a-cause, presented evidence yesterday that could shake the judicial system to its foundation. While helping families facing foreclosure, her non-profit organization has recently stumbled upon very questionable judicial actions in several states. The evidence is overwhelming that the powerful foreclosure industry not only has inappropriate influence over state court systems, but is using threats and economic pressure to stymie investigative efforts and legislative regulation.

On first appearance one would expect to see Anne Batte as the hostess of a chic cocktail party in Chevy Chase, MD, welcoming a National Geographic explorer back home, or perhaps chatting away at the grand opening of an art museum’s new wing in Denver. The college coed figure, youthful looks and sophisticated vocabulary of the blonde Southern Belle disguise her total dedication to an effort to help the victims of America’s Great Recession. She is an Evangelical Christian and the founder of Operation Restoration, Inc.. Anne Batte grew up in Richmond, VA. She is the daughter of the late, John Batte, a prominent Virginia attorney and real estate developer. Her inherited position in Richmond society would have never predicted her current lifestyle. Among many experiences in her past, she also has been the successful developer of large real estate projects and has lived in several regions, including Costa Rica. After returning to live in Atlanta in March 2008, she became aware of the mass suffering in the United States caused by the Great Recession and the apparent indifference of those in power to this suffering. She stated yesterday that she has taken Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount, literally and trusts in God to provide her earthly needs as she carries out her mission.

Operation Restoration describes itself as “a free, non-profit mission of healing and restoration that is dedicated to foreclosure prevention.” It currently is helping homeowners in 39 states, but as more donations become available, it plans to provide services nationwide. The organization has published educational information and self-help tools online. It provides trained case managers to guide borrowers and realtors. It also assists law enforcement agencies when team members become aware of possible crimes being committed. The staff and volunteers of Operation Restoration come from a broad range of professions in the finance, real estate and construction communities. Bankers and attorneys have been extremely helpful in developing the programs of the organization. Ms. Batte stated that she hoped the national media would help the public understand that the entire financial and legal community should not be condemned for the illegal or greedy actions of some members of their professions.

Evidence of judicial corruption

Under the shade of a giant weeping willow tree in the North Georgia Mountains, Batte presented a cardboard box full of photocopied legal documents. These copies were obtained from court cases and foreclosure actions from around the nation. However, the questionable legal actions seem concentrated in the Lower Southeast, where the Great Recession began. Within the mounds of paperwork, the most obvious violations of federal and state laws involved forged signatures of attorneys, corporate officers and notary publics. The names on these documents can not be released to the public at this time because such information would interfere with active criminal investigations or are evidence for civil cases in progress. There were 12 different signatures on legal documents supposedly reviewed and signed by one attorney. All of them contrasted starkly with the signature within his own mortgage! In some of the court cases he was involved with, sloppy and apparently illegal work allowed official court documents to be forged for both parties representing sellers and buyers, or plaintiffs and defendants. Ms. Batte stated that this particular case was thoroughly exposed in November 2010 by one of the nation’s oldest broadcast news teams, WSB-TV. However, since then, the ABC local affiliate has ceased investigating cases of foreclosure fraud. No action has been taken by law enforcement agencies against the attorney.

Other forged documents claimed that corporations held deeds to real estate properties that they didn’t own. A major national bank foreclosed on a property which the occupants owned free and clear, and didn’t even have a mortgage. More common cases involved attorneys signing documents claiming that mortgages were in default that actually were current in payments. Certain women signed official court documents as registered notary publics when in fact they were NOT notary publics at that time.

The next level of fraud presented by Ms. Batte involved how state courts had dealt with obvious cases of fraud, forgery and perjury. In a typical case, attorneys for the plaintiff challenged the legality of court documents witnessed and signed by a person pretending to be a notary public. Several months after the illegal act, she had become a notary public. She was employed by a large law firm, which persuaded several attorneys and notary publics to sign sworn affidavits that she was a notary public at the time when they originally submitted documents to the court. All of these affidavits were acts of perjury, which should have resulted in disbarment, criminal fines and potentially, prison sentences. So far the judge has done nothing. In case after case, official court documents identified certain judges in state courts, who were consistently blocking cases involving forgery of deeds, legal documents and foreclosure actions from being brought to trial. In some cases, district attorneys refused to present evidence of illegality to the courts. In other cases, district attorneys or civil attorneys tried to present evidence of illegality, but were quickly censured by certain judges. In one case, in Fulton County, GA, a judge threatened a crime victim with contempt of court if she ever was in his courtroom again. Her complaint was that forged signatures were utilized by a mortgage service company to foreclose on her home, when in Georgia mortgage service companies can not legally foreclose on residential real estate.

State banking committee stalls mortgage fraud legislation.

Ms. Batte stated that while legislators in many states have publicly announced their opposition to shady mortgage procedures and fraudulent foreclosures, there has been little state level legislation that addresses the problems. She explained that most states have public records of large sums of money being spent by lobbyists to persuade legislators to maintain the status quo. A good example of the contrast between public statements made by politicians and their actual behind-the-scenes activities can be found in Georgia. Georgia State Senator Jack S. Murphy was named chairman of the GA. Senate Banking Committee in January 2011. GA Senate Bill 123, amending the laws on mortgage fraud, was sent to his committee for review. There it has sat since then. In the meantime, Murphy along with seven other former officers of the failed Integrity National Bank of Alpharetta, GA have been charged by FDIC regulators with gross negligence and various breaches of fiduciary duty associated with its issuance of mortgage loans. The FDIC is seeking damages of over $70 million. Murphy refuses to resign from the Banking Committee. The Georgia House of Representatives passed its version of the mortgage fraud bill in April 2011. However, since the Senate version never came out of committee, the House version was introduced into the Senate shortly before midnight on the General Assembly’s last day of this session. It was tabled to the 2012 session.

What are state criminal justice agencies doing?

Ms. Batte was asked why state agencies were not taking a more active role in the investigation of forgeries, mortgage fraud and illegal foreclosures. She responded that the involvement of state attorney generals varies from state to state. Some have shown great concern when shown evidence that judges in their state were not enforcing the law. Others claimed that they had no jurisdiction or that it was improper for them to question the findings of standing judges. Ms. Batte stated that Samuel Olens, a highly respected attorney and former Cobb County, GA Commission Chairman, made prosecution of mortgage and foreclosure fraud a major platform of his campaign last fall. However, after becoming Georgia’s new Attorney General, he has not prosecuted any cases of these types of fraud, nor investigated charges of judges showing inappropriate favoritism to the foreclosure industry. She added that apparently “someone got to him” around February of 2011. He suddenly stopped mentioning foreclosure and mortgage fraud in public speechs. When questioned by reporters about these subjects, he dodges the issue and claims that he has no power to investigate violation of the state laws relating to perjury, forgery, fraud and judicial misconduct.

At the end of her interview, Ms. Batte was asked if she felt any concern for her personal safety since providing incriminating evidence to criminal justice agencies about judiciary impropriety. She said that members of their organization have received some threats. At times their office phones have appeared to be illegally tapped. The dynamic civic leader ended her response with this statement of her faith, “I have placed my life in God’s hands and in him, I will always trust.”

Not a single member of the Washington DC press corps has asked the White House about the nationwide system of extrajudicial punishment that ranges from community-based “gangstalking” to financial sabotage and covert electromagnetic weapon assault, impairment, torture and subjugation/”behavior (mind) control”.

107th CONGRESS1st SessionH. R. 2977To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESOctober 2, 2001Mr. KUCINICH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILLTo preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Space Preservation Act of 2001′.

SEC. 2. REAFFIRMATION OF POLICY ON THE PRESERVATION OF PEACE IN SPACE.

Congress reaffirms the policy expressed in section 102(a) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2451(a)), stating that it `is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.’.

SEC. 3. PERMANENT BAN ON BASING OF WEAPONS IN SPACE.

The President shall–

(1) implement a permanent ban on space-based weapons of the United States and remove from space any existing space-based weapons of the United States; and

(2) immediately order the permanent termination of research and development, testing, manufacturing, production, and deployment of all space-based weapons of the United States and their components.

SEC. 4. WORLD AGREEMENT BANNING SPACE-BASED WEAPONS.

The President shall direct the United States representatives to the United Nations and other international organizations to immediately work toward negotiating, adopting, and implementing a world agreement banning space-based weapons.

SEC. 5. REPORT.

The President shall submit to Congress not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter, a report on–

(1) the implementation of the permanent ban on space-based weapons required by section 3; and

(2) progress toward negotiating, adopting, and implementing the agreement described in section 4.

SEC. 6. NON SPACE-BASED WEAPONS ACTIVITIES.

Nothing in this Act may be construed as prohibiting the use of funds for–

(1) space exploration;

(2) space research and development;

(3) testing, manufacturing, or production that is not related to space-based weapons or systems; or

(4) civil, commercial, or defense activities (including communications, navigation, surveillance, reconnaissance, early warning, or remote sensing) that are not related to space-based weapons or systems.

SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) The term `space’ means all space extending upward from an altitude greater than 60 kilometers above the surface of the earth and any celestial body in such space.

(2)(A) The terms `weapon’ and `weapons system’ mean a device capable of any of the following:

(i) Damaging or destroying an object (whether in outer space, in the atmosphere, or on earth) by–

(I) firing one or more projectiles to collide with that object;

(II) detonating one or more explosive devices in close proximity to that object;

(ii) Inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person)–

(I) through the use of any of the means described in clause (i) or subparagraph (B);

(II) through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations; or

(III) by expelling chemical or biological agents in the vicinity of a person.

(C) The term `exotic weapons systems’ includes weapons designed to damage space or natural ecosystems (such as the ionosphere and upper atmosphere) or climate, weather, and tectonic systems with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a target population or region on earth or in space.